Re: General semantics

On May 22, 1:15 am, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
> On 22 mei, 00:20, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:>> > I would prefer to program in a pure relational model,>> That is a tall order. The closest you can get to this ideal, as> things are today, is Rel (and that's nowhere near industrial strength)> and Muldis D (and that's nothing more than just a spec). I won't even> mention my own project, which I believe to give better results from> the perspective of "industrial strength", but which doesn't really> facilitate "programming in a pure relational model", as you call it.>> > but I must deal> > with both OOP classes and SQL tables, so I want to understand how the> > concepts and mechanisms fit together.>> As things stand today, only in extremely ugly ways.>> > Analyzing OOP in relational terms simply opens the way to apply> > relational thinking in existing OOP systems.>> Dubious. If you can analyze OOP in relational terms, then that means> that you understand relational terms, and that in turn means that you> can already "apply relational thinking" to _just any_ kind of problem.>> So it is not the "Analyzing OOP in relational terms" that opens up to> "apply relational thinking in existing OOP systems". What DOES open> up to that is merely to "understand relational thinking".

I agree with your whole post. Still, I want to describe OOP in RM to
make its limitations explicit. It raises questions I want answered,
such as: